If I were a juror, based soley on the evidence they were given I would have found her guilty on the third charge of aggreviated manslaughter.

Florida law defines aggreviated manslaughter as the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence. Culpable negligence is when a person fails to reasonable prevent risk of injury or death.

Evidence: The medical examiner said in 100% of cases where an accident was involved in the death of a child someone reported the accident immediately. Logical view for a jury: It is not reasonable for a mother whose child is involved in an accident to fail to report it. Clearly the failure to report the child missing or report that there had been an accident as the defense claims would indicate at the minimum the mother attempted to hide what happened to her child. Additional evidence to support the fact that the mother was hiding something would be the lies told to police and her family about the child's where abouts. So based on the testimony of the medical examiner and police detective it is NOT reasonable to doubt that the mother had reason to hide the death of the child either due to direct involvement or at the least neglect. There is no reasonable reason for the mother to lie unless she feared backlash due to her part in the child's death.

So accidentals death ALWAYS get reported and Casey LIED about what happened to Caylee. So the next logical question in determining if neglect was involved - why lie? Common sense would tell the jury Casey lied for the same reason anyone else does, selfish gain. So what did Casey have to gain by lying about what happened to her child? Nothing unless she had involvement in it or knew she caused it. And that is enough to prove neglect. There is plenty of other evidence to support neglect but I'll add that when I get off work.

You don't need to add more evidence....what you showed here is very good.

Here is a thought though about the whole thing....is it not possible, and unfortunate, that the jurors focused on the murder charge more than anything else? What I mean is that each time they were presented with a piece of evidence they compared it strictly to murder and not to anything else, like negligence?